The stellar business man who was going to save America financially did not seem to make such a good investment in his campaign, and he seemed to lack judgment.
Mitt Romney, according to a Wall Street Journal article, spent too much money too soon and wound up going to fat cats in Florida where he made his infamous 47 percent remarks — you know, where he called almost half of the people in America lazy and dependant upon government handouts — never mind that many in the percentage were retirees who paid into Social Security, and military veterans.
He took the wrong position on women’s rights and on immigrant rights, the latter alienating much of the fastest growing voting block, Latinos.
I mean he came up with the absurd-sounding notion of poor but hardworking, but unfortunately undocumented, people looking for work to “self deport” themselves (like telling people they are so unwanted they are not worth kicking out). Yes, we need to have immigration laws, but come on. Maybe it was just a poor choice of words — you think?
(Should criminals self-arrest themselves?)
Oh, and the biggie of them all. He brought up the subject of auto company bailouts. Although I think he might have been technically correct in his attitude, politically it was a no-winner if he wanted to capture the vote in Ohio where so many workers realized that they owed their jobs — many directly or indirectly connected to the auto industry — to President Obama’s auto bailout.
(Ohio was a must win, he knew from the beginning.)
And his pandering to the far-right loony crowd alienated so many people. You have to realize that the American voter in general may not be ideological. People tend to vote their own self interest (and their concept of that changes from time to time) and also pay attention to what they consider their own values, and sometimes the idea of slashing social programs for the needy in favor of more tax breaks for the super rich (hidden behind the mantra of saving the middle class) just does not seem correct.
Something tells me the Republican Party is going to change. And I think it will be for the better. It will be or could be a party of solid traditional values and staunchly supportive of free enterprise with as little as possible government interference while accommodating a new social makeup of the nation and a new “liberalism”, if you will, in social values, such as tolerance or acceptance of homosexuals (gays if you must).
We need both our major political parties to be strong and to offer countering approaches. That is why we have a strong free enterprise system and democratic (small d) government that takes the best of what some people call “socialism” to provide a safety net and some stability in society. Free enterprise depends upon that stability and so does democracy. But socialism can run amok (Europe has its problems; the Soviet Union disintegrated, and it certainly did not work out well for Cuba; China and Vietnam, for example, turned to free enterprise for their economies).
Here’s to a new and improved elephant!